The 2025 Canadian Federal Election: Trends, Observations, amd Reasons

[buster]

We're going to have to stretch this thread out because nothing is for sure until next Monday evening. And there's bound to be hidden gems of drama. And I think it might to be interesting to read what others are taking from this battle that's going on.

1. I'll admit that I'm getting a great deal of information from the 338 site, which does not do polls, but analyzes the results of the many other polls, giving most weight to those that have been successful in the past with their predictions. This should work:

https://338canada.com/federal.htm

2. An analysis of the map somewhere on the site shows it's probable/possible only 2 provinces will elect more Conservatives than Liberals.

3. I suspect many voters intend to shift away from NDP for this election to combine with other nonCons, just to be be sure.

Bill, I have no idea what your riding is doing. My son's will go Conservative and my daughter's will vote Liberal. Peterborough is still pretty tight.

[fox]

Yup; I've also heard that it will be close in Peterborough. I already voted in the advance poll.

[buster]

So I guess the big issues for us watching will be

a) the wished for, by the Liberals, coveted 172 seats needed by the Liberals to have a majority government,

b) who wins in Peterborough,

c) who wins in Manitoba, and B.C.,

d) and how soon we know.

If someone finds a good Internet link to Newfoundland or Halifax it might be useful,though there should be any number of places we can find out how the east coast is doing.

Maybe Sunday we can make predictions.

[buster]

I think the 338 Canada site is getting hammered at the moment and unusable, so I'll have to use my seldom required ability to see into the future. (It's very tiring!)

1. NDP will lose their official party status because they wont win enough seats.

2. The Peterborough election may take a while to sort because it make take longer for the rural vote to come in, and that's where the Conservatives have strength. But I can see through the mists a Liberal victory finally.

3. Using as much of my mystic power as I can, I see Conservatives winning only in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, though Manitoba is very blurry. That province will be very close.

4. I see the political future of Canada being decided maybe even as early as ten o'clock.  And the word 'majority' can be seen at the fringes of my vision.

I also see myself as all alone in a huge, cold universe, with no other human wishing to predict.

[ssfc72]

The Lindsay area has always voted solidly Conservative both Federal and Provincial.

I think this time the Liberal candidate may win.
With the large growth in housing in the urban area of Lindsay, I think the urban people that have moved to Lindsay may tend to vote Liberal.

The local Federal Liberal candidate seems to me to be a good contender. I believe she is a Veterinarian and seems to be an intelligent political representative.

Bill, I have no idea what your riding is doing. My son's will go Conservative and my daughter's will vote Liberal. Peterborough is still pretty tight.

[buster]

Don't bet any money on a change Bill.

https://338canada.com/35035e.htm

[buster]

The Liberals in Peterborough are very well organized trying to squeeze out every vote they can. The candidates are side by side in polling. But it's not always how many are on your side, but how many get out and vote.

Last week I had a visit from an attractive Trent student, encouraging me to vote for Emma. Yesterday I had calls from my new friends Mark and Emma. This morning I found some glossy cardboard stuck in my door from Emma telling me where to vote and giving a phone number for a ride if I needed one. And then this morning I met Jeanette from Saskatchewan, who is usually NDP, who offered us a ride to vote. She is working for the Liberals. (I applaud their wisdom in sending women to my house.)

They are certainly dedicated and enthusiastic trying to swing a very tight riding. Should be an interesting race tonight as the votes come in. Time to get out and vote.

[buster]

It has become obvious that Marilyn and I are the two most important voters in all of Canada. I just got off the phone from a very nice sounding woman offering a ride to take us to vote,  especially after telling her I'm 131.

Later in the conversation she said, 'If we don't free Peterborough this time, we will at the next election when you're 135 years old.'

It could be the whole thing is sham and these people are involved in a dating service for 'mature' ladies.

[buster]

Voted about an hour ago. No noticeable wait but area crowded. Many have united to fight their particular version of the dark force.

On the Internet we should be able to peek at results from east coast somewhere around eight o'clock. This may give us an idea if the predictions are correct or imaginary.

[ssfc72]

So much for my view of the Kawartha Lakes riding winner.

The Conservative candidate got elected again with a large 57% of the vote. The Liberals got 38%.

The Kawartha Lakes riding was reduced in size, in 2022, with the Brock riding being taken away and placed with the York riding.

[buster]

Biggest surprises for me -

1. Libs won fairly easily in Peterborough.

2. The Cons leader lost his riding, Carleton, after 2 decades.

3. Two Conservative provincial leaders did nothing to support the Federal Conservatives - Ontario and Nova Scotia.

3. Western Ontario went blue, and as well as many Toronto suburbs.

However, with 7 NDP, Libs should be able to keep the agenda moving. That gives the two parties an easy majority.

[Jason]

I kept telling everyone I knew that Peterborough wouldn't be close. The Liberals always push this idea when they want a majority. With only 30% of the votes in, I predicted a Liberal victory.

I figured the Liberals were going to get a majority, so I was surprised when they didn't. However, two parties got over 40% of the vote, the first time since 1930! I'm glad they got a minority. But I'm depressed that it took destroying the NDP to get there. F'ing strategic voting! After everything the NDP did for Canadians, that's how they're rewarded. And to add more humiliation to have Jagmeet Singh lose his seat, in third place, no less. I knew the NDP was going to do badly; I thought it was going to be worse, honestly, but that's not much salve for my wounds.

The only silver lining is that I think they've hit rock bottom, so the only direction is up. Well, that and being able to extract something from the Liberals if they want NDP support. I know it's unlikely, but I'm hoping the NDP pushes to get a cabinet seat or two in an official coalition. Either that or demanding electoral reform. The NDP has the same popular vote as the Bloc, a party that ONLY runs in Quebec, and yet the Bloc got almost 3x as many seats. That is wrong. And the Greens wound up with only 1 when the popular vote should give them 4.

[buster]

Some Disadvantages of a Proportional Representation Election System

For those who have never heard of it, the objective of this system is to apportion seats in the House of Commons as close as is possible to the % earned by each party in the total vote. Our inherited British system divides the country into ridings and each riding votes in one representative to represent it in Ottawa.

Our inherited system has some advantages, even while it is sometimes perceived as unfair. Majority governments can be achieved, whereas in proportional systems this is rare without a coalition. Ridings can be kept smaller, so we can contact our particular representative. This becomes important in large rural areas. Voters can vote for a person in another party to represent them if that person has done a good job. Sometimes people do not vote for a political party but maybe for a former mayor that they like and appreciate. In our present system it is difficult to establish fringe systems, because you have to win an area.

We know from watching other countries that our system would change significantly. Probably it would not look like the system we now have. Here are some changes that would have to be faced.

1. There would be a small group of politicians that are not attached to an area, but mostly to the party.
2. There would be many more fringe parties, and they would each have a voice in one way or another. If the House had 400 seats and a fringe group got 1% of the vote, they would get 4 seats in the house. You can think of some unpleasant parties that might emerge, and have emerged in other countries. Multiple parties governing would be difficult.
3. Established parties might splinter, rather than trying to cooperate within the party. And then coalitions would be even more necessary, maybe making governing more difficult. I'm thinking of the  extreme right end of the Conservative party as an example.
4. Our system, while maybe unfair, is simple to understand, and is grounded in a known area for the voter. Simple is good for most people.

There are probably many more advantages and disadvantages of either system, that will probably show up soon with pepper on them.

[Jason]

Proportional representation isn't a voting system, which I should've clarified. It's a principle that you explained well in your introduction. There are many forms of proportional representation, which can have some of the issues you mentioned, but not all. So, certain "problems" may only be an issue in certain forms of PR and not others. Many of them do have a local representative elected, for example, that attached to the area. Although it can be argued whether a local MP is really attached to the area. Sure, they might live here, but do they vote with the party or do they ask what their constituents want and vote accordingly? I think you know the answer to that.

To answer your other concerns, I refer to the Myths page on the Fair Vote site:

"1. There would be a small group of politicians that are not attached to an area, but mostly to the party."

Depending on the proportional model you will have one local MP and regional MPs (Mixed Member Proportional), several local MPs (Single Transferable Vote) or a combination (Rural-Urban Proportional). Almost every voter will help elect an MP who shares their values.

"2. There would be many more fringe parties, and they would each have a voice in one way or another. If the House had 400 seats and a fringe group got 1% of the vote, they would get 4 seats in the house. You can think of some unpleasant parties that might emerge, and have emerged in other countries."

The claim that parties with a "tiny" percentage of the vote will be elected is mostly false in the context of the proportional systems recommended for Canada.

Proportional systems usually have a threshold of support that a party must meet to win seats. 4-5% is common.

And,

In Canada's last few federal elections, all 15-20 "fringe" parties put together didn't get 1% of the vote.

Regarding unpleasant fringe parties, we've had the Bloc since 1990. Maybe you don't agree but a separatist party in parliament is rather unpleasant. In 1993, they became the Official Opposition despite only having about 10% of the vote. FPTP rewards regional parties even when they don't have seats in the rest of the country. I also considered Reform pretty fringe. And a mostly regional party. Also, see here for more about how extremist parties aren't generally elected more in PR countries than in those with FPTP.


"Multiple parties governing would be difficult."

This is a separate issue, so I broke it out.

Research shows little difference between OECD countries using proportional or "winner-take-all" systems. Looking at elections from 1945 to 1998, Pilon (2007: 146-154) calculates that countries using FPTP averaged 16.7 elections, while countries using proportional systems averaged only 16.0 elections. There is no significant difference between the two.

And I need to state the obvious? We haven't had a majority since 2015. Since then, we've had 3 elections. And for elections. Normally, in a 12-year period, we have had 3 elections. If minority governments can work under FPTP, why wouldn't they work under PR?


"3. Established parties might splinter, rather than trying to cooperate within the party. And then coalitions would be even more necessary, maybe making governing more difficult. I'm thinking of the  extreme right end of the Conservative party as an example."

Not sure why it would be any worse than what we have. The PC party in the 1990s split into Reform, PCS, and the Bloc. A few years later, Reform and some PCS became the Canadian Alliance, which then became the Conservative Party. Greens also emerged later. The Conservative Party recently split off into the People's Party, which won the vote but was never elected. And to get that vote, Conservatives became more extreme, under our system. FPTP didn't discourage splintering. That will happen regardless. If you look at Canadian history, splintering is common. Labour, Social Credit, Progressives, Reform, etc., federally. Provincially, it's even worse. The system doesn't matter. Here, the stability issue is addressed more:

One variation of the "instability" myth brought up by opponents (see Fact Checker on Stability) is the related idea that when people of different parties must work together, nothing will get done. Sometimes this is alleged problem is described in alarmist language, such as "recipe for paralysis."

Political parties play on this myth by urging us to vote for "a strong, stable government." In other words: Give my party all the power, because power-sharing won't work.

It's natural to assume that when individuals with different viewpoints must work to understand each other's perspective and negotiate solutions, decisions become more difficult.

But research on small group decision making shows that diversity and dissent within a group have two important, positive effects on decision making:

1. It leads to more creativity and innovation
2. It prevents decisions based on groupthink and pandering

And while governing can be more difficult, you assume that it would be difficult for parties to work together because of the experience of FPTP. Parties don't want to work together because they're always angling for the next election, which the governing party gets to call whenever convenient. In a PR system, parties will work together because they know a majority isn't just an election call away. And that important thing here is that whether they have a governing coalition or make an agreement in exchange for policy initiatives, a majority of Canadians will have their view represented, not just 40% or less.


"4. Our system, while maybe unfair, is simple to understand, and is grounded in a known area for the voter. Simple is good for most people."

You gloss over this: "Our system, while maybe unfair..." like it's questionable. Do you think a separatist party that runs in only a single province should have 3x the number of seats as a national party? Do you think that 15-25% of voters in a riding should have no representation by a party that represents their values? I haven't had a party representing my values since 2003 provincially, and 1993 federally. And that's only because I voted for the red. I'm not the only one. Only Liberals and Conservatives would say "maybe" because they benefit the most from the status quo. Anyway, from the website:

How simple a voting system is to use is a highly subjective opinion. There are no comparative studies asking voters in different countries how "simple" they think their electoral system is to use or to understand.

It's very likely that most voters find whatever system they use now to be fairly easy, because that is the system they are used to.

And,

There's no evidence that voters find most proportional representation ballots complicated. Voter turnout in countries with PR is higher, on average, than countries with first past the post. And the rate of spoiled ballots is no different from Canada.

I suppose voting for one party/candidate, you don't get one without the other is simpler. But what happens when you are split between deciding to vote with your values or voting out of fear for the less bad guy because the really bad guy might win? It's not so easy then. PR would give you options. I question whether any of the PR systems are that difficult. STV might be one of the easiest. You rank the candidates.

Finally, you gloss over the problems of FPTP (our present system). A minority of voters (usually 40%) decides the direction of 100% of the country. And since only about 60% vote, it's typically only 24%. And FPTP, the post is a big part of why so few vote. What's the point of voting if your party rarely wins? I have had people tell me that.

Most of the problems you mentioned are hypotheses that aren't born out in practice. Only the last one might be reasonable. It will be more complicated than simply voting for one party/candidate. But you can see how who you vote for will be represented in the makeup of parliament. Your view *will* be represented in parliament by a local MP that serves you.

[Jason]

However, with 7 NDP, Libs should be able to keep the agenda moving. That gives the two parties an easy majority.

You mean the NDP will keep the agenda moving. It was the NDP that provided the balance of power in two parliaments to move an agenda forward that the Liberals might not have passed. Liberals are in the centre. The centre follows; it doesn't lead. I mean it doesn't want to make big changes because it gets support from both sides. It's like those balances you use in doing renovations. It tries to stay in the middle. It has to be pushed to move anything forward.